R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: Tomas Danko on September 11, 2007, 05:39:51 am

Title: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Tomas Danko on September 11, 2007, 05:39:51 am
Here is the latest on this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

I am waiting with anticipation to see if Max will let go of his theories. Smile
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: CCC on September 11, 2007, 08:13:22 am
Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 05:39

Here is the latest on this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

I am waiting with anticipation to see if Max will let go of his theories. Smile


As usual, the best explanation is the simplest.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rankus on September 11, 2007, 12:59:43 pm


Condolences to my American brothers on the anniversary of this un-holy day (Sept 11th)





Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 11, 2007, 01:10:44 pm
""One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen."

That's got a lot of implications for our recent conversation here, in which it was repeatedly implied that nothing confounded engineers. Thank goodness religious belief in Popular Mechanics doesn't stand in the way of real science.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 11, 2007, 01:41:05 pm
mgod wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 18:10

""One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen."

That's got a lot of implications for our recent conversation here, in which it was repeatedly implied that nothing confounded engineers. Thank goodness religious belief in Popular Mechanics doesn't stand in the way of real science.

DS


Well I'm not sure which engineers were "confounded", I'd say the "controversy" is being rather overplayed by the BBC, in fact Dr Seffen also says "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural."

Try calculating the kinetic energy of the upper sections once they'd fallen a couple of floors... you'll find that the towers collapsing isn't all that confounding after all.

A 14 floor section falling 3.5m (less than one floor's height) releases more potential energy than half a tonne of TNT, it seems highly unlikely that a previously damaged structure is going to withstand that, so it's going to keep going, it loses some of its momentum, but gravity gives it some more, and now it's got an extra 45,000 tonnes of material to work with, by the time you reach the previously undamaged floors they don't stand a chance.

By the way, I'm not referencing Popular Mechanics, and I certainly don't have any sort of religious belief in them, I just use Newton and those who followed him.

I look forward to reading Dr Seffen's paper when it becomes available though, since he's apparantly looked into things in far more detail.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: amorris on September 11, 2007, 02:34:06 pm
I saw a cspan presentation of some big league college professor who was in the fore front of a conspiracy whose main "witness" was a cleaning lady who helped clean up and they found some chemical in her bucket three years later that undeniably proved that it was a demolition. un fucking beleivable. this guy was getting national converage and was the head of some university department. I thank god Im not in school right now. Id probably beleive some of this crap too.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 11, 2007, 06:59:29 pm
yes. ok.

does not explain the usual pain-in-the-ass doubts:

pulverization, freefall, squids, severed steel beams at 45
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 12, 2007, 10:51:43 am
That was such a predictable response, max.  You're a True Believer, and no amount of evidence or analysis that runs contradictory to your beliefs can possibly count for anything.

You would make a horrible engineer.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 12, 2007, 11:15:52 am
That's one hell of an assumption.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 12, 2007, 05:13:16 pm
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 16:51

That was such a predictable response, max.  You're a True Believer, and no amount of evidence or analysis that runs contradictory to your beliefs can possibly count for anything.

You would make a horrible engineer.



I love these 9/11 threads... they NEVER END!!! bwahahahahaha

I could say the same about you jimmyjazz, couldn't I..

Perhaps YOU could enlighten me on how WTC7 fell from an engineering standpoint, and why nobody in the corporate/federal side of the fence ever talks about it?

with echo and reverb: NO OTHER BUILDING WITH A STEEL FRAME EVER FELL DOWN VERTICALLY NEAR FREEFALL SPEED AS A RESULT OF FIRE OR PLANE IMPACT!!!

cucumber sandwitches?

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: PRobb on September 12, 2007, 06:09:18 pm
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:13


with echo and reverb: NO OTHER BUILDING WITH A STEEL FRAME EVER FELL DOWN VERTICALLY NEAR FREEFALL SPEED AS A RESULT OF FIRE OR PLANE IMPACT!!!

cucumber sandwitches?



Actually, that's true. Every other steel frame building that has taken a direct 400mph impact from from a big jet airliner with a full load of fuel has remained standing. Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rankus on September 12, 2007, 07:06:26 pm

No other steel buildings were externally stiffened... the towers were like steel tubes instead of internal structure as most buildings are. One floor pancaked onto the next inside this steel tube....

It's unlikely engineers will ever use this method again.

Do some homework Max.




Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 13, 2007, 02:25:05 am
funny, as soon as somebody on tv says something how official it becomes..

Good you brought this up

the WTC towers had an exterior shell which was built as you mentioned with an exterior shell.

the building was externally stiffened to stop it from oscillating side-to-side.

this makes perfect sense! all of the load-bearing is carried by the central coloumn which is

a) full of heavy steel coloums

b) higher in density

c) built in a different way, so it should crumble in a different way

to keep the central coloumn from oscillating all you need is a 'flimsy' exterior shell.

you can see this principle being applied loosely for masts of sailboats.

the mast carries the load, the ropes keep the mast from oscillating.


so USING YOUR BRAIN, you are now faced with the problem:

why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..?

well there is a simple, logical explanation:

in order for the high-density central section made of heavy steel beams encapsulated in cement and the flimsy external section made of a grid of lighter beams to fall at EXACTLY the same time the element of gravity cannot be responsible.

there has to be something which nulls the difference in rigidity, mass, and flexibility differences between the central coloumn and the outer shell..

the only way to do this is to destroy both sections in a way that they do NOT resist gravity, so that they can fall in the same way, at the same time..


the architect who designed the towers did something clever, he knew that the central coloumn was going to be full of elevator shafts and therefore would have no real estate value (which is why you build skyscrapers in the first place).

the external shell ONLY had to make the building rigid and support the weight of the individual floors (light) and it's own weight (normal).

furthermore the building was reinforced in at least two different points, so that the external shell was interrupted and one or two floor's worth of the building were built stronger.

in effect it was like three sections one on top of another.

SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors?

for the same reason that the external shell fell at the same rate as the central coloumn..

the floors were blown out.

TV is a COMMERCIAL medium...


turn off your TV and use your head.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 13, 2007, 04:13:54 am
As usual max misses out or gets wrong pretty much all the relevant details.

It is well known amongst those who actually bother to read on the subject that the structure of the twin towers was unusual for the time, in order to maximize rentable real estate support was moved to the perimeter walls, which far from being a simple facia actually supported a notable proportion of the building's weight.

In addition the core was not encased in thick concrete as max would have us believe.

Finally there is video evidence that the core did not actually collapse as quickly as the perimeters, in the case of at least one tower part of it can be seen sticking up through the dust cloud for somewhere between 10 and 15 seconds after the rest of the collapse has finished.

As well as all this it's pretty obvious from Max's comments about TV that he hasn't even bothered to think about what was presented at the start of this thread.

The BBC haven't broadcast anything, this wasn't their study, they haven't made a program on it. All they have done is report on the work of a Cambridge lecturer from the Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Division, who teaches amongst other things Structural Steelwork , one who has been published more than thirty times on a variety of subjects in peer reviewed science and engineering publications.

Of course if Max wants to challenge Dr Seffen credentials or conclusions he's quite at liberty to obtain a copy of the paper and point out the error in the guy's calculations or data.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 13, 2007, 05:00:27 am
Or perhaps Max would prefer to challenge a demolitions expert who was actually at ground zero?

Quote:

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 13, 2007, 05:12:01 am
This is what the experts on explosive demolition who actually had access to the site and multiple seismic readings have to say about theories of explosive demolition.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%20 8-8-06.pdf
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: max cooper on September 13, 2007, 09:35:09 am
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 01:25



SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors?




I'm sure they did.

When you're driving down the highway in your car and you hit a grasshopper, the impact slows your car slightly.  Can you feel it or see it?  Probably not.  

I think the best case against a 911 conspiracy is the fact that it would involve a hell of a lot of people and they'd all have to be keeping the whole thing a secret.  Seems unlikely.


But hey, if it keeps guys like Jeff Rense in business...
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rollmottle on September 13, 2007, 11:03:01 am
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 23:25



the WTC towers had an exterior shell which was built as you mentioned with an exterior shell.

the building was externally stiffened to stop it from oscillating side-to-side.

this makes perfect sense! all of the load-bearing is carried by the central coloumn which is



had you a clue or even done some cursory research, you would know the WTC towers' shell were in fact a critical part of the load bearing structure. you know, when i visited the towers as a kid back in the early 80s, you learned that on the tour.




Quote:


why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..?


TV is a COMMERCIAL medium...

turn off your TV and use your head.




Max says: Watch the video evidence!
Max says:  But wait, don't watch TV because it can't be trusted!

Everybody says: WTF. Where do you think all those Youtube videos came from? How can you trust the very medium you mistrust for the entire basis of your evidence? So turn off your TV and watch Youtube videos instead? Nice, consistent logic as always dood.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 13, 2007, 04:06:34 pm
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:13


I could say the same about you jimmyjazz, couldn't I..


Doubtful, given that I hold a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 American engineering school, not to mention the title Principal Engineer for the company where I've spent the past 14+ years of my life.  My main areas of expertise are mechanics of materials, acoustics/vibrations, rotating machinery, and structural analysis.

But enough about me.  The story in question centers on a renowned structural engineer's analysis.  Certainly you don't consider yourself qualified to refute his work, do you?  (My father, who was a Structural Engineering professor for 40 years as well as chairman of the Steel Joist Institute says the guy is right on, by the way, but again, that holds no sway with you, does it?)

Yeesh.  Rein it in a bit, will ya?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 13, 2007, 04:11:11 pm
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 02:25


why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..?
.
.
.
SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors?


Have you read the report which answers these very questions?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 13, 2007, 04:44:56 pm
Ah, Max...

Whatever would we do without you!

Watch this if you would...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c

Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living?

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 14, 2007, 04:16:25 am
ssltech wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 22:44

Ah, Max...

Whatever would we do without you!

Watch this if you would...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c

Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living?

Keith


'the heat of the fire would have softened both the...coloumns...trusses'

bwahahahahaha!!!!

yeah!!

I suggest you go and see some welding up close friends...

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 14, 2007, 04:17:43 am
I love how the big chunk of tower which was falling to the side in that video disintegrated by itself as it was falling..

too much.

this whole discussion is a good lesson for ME..
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 14, 2007, 09:30:51 am
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:16

ssltech wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 22:44

Ah, Max...

Whatever would we do without you!

Watch this if you would...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jwsBkZhP_0c

Then -if you still don't get it- may I suggest selling ice cream for a living?

Keith


'the heat of the fire would have softened both the...coloumns...trusses'

bwahahahahaha!!!!

yeah!!

I suggest you go and see some welding up close friends...




I suggest you learn some metalurgy.

Oh shit! sorry! Learning anything is against your religion.

"Softened" is perhaps not the best term... how about "weakened"? Will you accept (since it is a basically recognized fact in metalurgy) that the temperatures the fires are generally acknowledged to have reach would weaken the steel?

Oh, and how about expansion? Would you accept that those same temperatures would result in notable expansion of the steel beams?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 14, 2007, 09:31:35 am
Good.

So Max, you think that structural engineering -like audio engineering- is something that should NOT be done by professionals?

(-Not an unreasonable conclusion based on your posts in this and other threads...)

Oh, and yes. I weld. I weld enough to understand at least SOMETHING about how localised heat deforms panels and structures, and which way they would likely move.

C'mon Max... I've given you the two factors you need to answer a question that you asked (about the "45
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 14, 2007, 09:33:29 am
Damn you John... -stop giving him clues!!! (I think we were typing replies at the same time...)

-If he can't LEARN anything from people who know something, at least he might think for himself! Wink

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 14, 2007, 09:33:59 am
maxdimario wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:17

I love how the big chunk of tower which was falling to the side in that video disintegrated by itself as it was falling..

too much.

this whole discussion is a good lesson for ME..


By itself?

Ok, now I now you're not particularly observant, but if you look REALLY closely, you'll see a load of dust being generated at the point of collapse.... that's because the moving bit is constantly colliding with a non moving bit.

Actually if your theory that the structure was broken by explosive charges before the collapse reached it was correct, then this would make the disintegration of that top section LESS likely.

You really don't think this stuff through AT ALL, do you?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 10:18:57 am
jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 13:06


Doubtful, given that I hold a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 American engineering school, not to mention the title Principal Engineer for the company where I've spent the past 14+ years of my life.

No offense intended here, but that doesn't really mean much, does it? Goergie Bush the Lesser graduated from Yale with a degree, and has held the title CEO of a number of companies. So its not a good reference. What people actually do is what counts. I can't tell you how many well-educated EE's I've met who have contributed little to audio except attitude and degree spouting, as well as some brilliant self-taught folks who build real usable stuff.

Technically speaking, my brother is a rocket scientist. He now says his college years were a waste except that he can brag that he is one, given that he's never spent a day doing anything with it. Our father never got past 8th grade in a village in eastern Hungary, but he built analog computers in our basement in the 60's.

Your "qualifiers" may make you an expert, but they don't make you informed or correct.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jay Kadis on September 14, 2007, 11:01:22 am
I'll accept the statements of a mechanical engineering Master's degree holder long before that of a legacy Yale C-student undergrad (you get a C just for showing up for the final.)  

Most people who get graduate degrees actually do know something about their subject.  
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 14, 2007, 11:41:10 am
In the case of most mechanical or structural engineers, "failure is not an option".

In the case of the Texas hatrack, failure -it would seem- is not a problem.

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Fox on September 14, 2007, 11:52:44 am
mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 10:18

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 13 September 2007 13:06


Doubtful, given that I hold a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 American engineering school, not to mention the title Principal Engineer for the company where I've spent the past 14+ years of my life.

No offense intended here, but that doesn't really mean much, does it? Goergie Bush the Lesser graduated from Yale with a degree, and has held the title CEO of a number of companies. So its not a good reference. What people actually do is what counts. I can't tell you how many well-educated EE's I've met who have contributed little to audio except attitude and degree spouting, as well as some brilliant self-taught folks who build real usable stuff.

Technically speaking, my brother is a rocket scientist. He now says his college years were a waste except that he can brag that he is one, given that he's never spent a day doing anything with it. Our father never got past 8th grade in a village in eastern Hungary, but he built analog computers in our basement in the 60's.

Your "qualifiers" may make you an expert, but they don't make you informed or correct.

DS


I probably shouldn't get into this, but:

You know this was an idiotic thing to post right? You've basically just told the man, "Yeah, you worked your ass off all the way through school, payed tens of thousands of dollars to educate yourself and learn to work in your chosen field, scrapped your way through years of hard times so you can earn the title of  a Master of your chosen field, but fuck you, 'cause that doesn't mean shit to me."

Of course there are brilliant self educated people and dumb-as-hell college graduates, but I'd have to say that these people are the exception, not the rule. Seems to me that someone who holds a frikkin' master's degree and has worked in that same field for 14+ years has a whole lot of credibility and deserves some respect when offering his professional opinion on matters that they work with everyday, unless they somehow prove themselves to be an idiot.

With the above post you've just disregarded what is likely over 20 years of experience.

Not cool, nor intelligent IMO.

Fox
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 14, 2007, 12:34:25 pm
Fox, thanks for the backup, but mgod's point is valid -- to an extent.  

My background doesn't mean I'm automatically right, but to be honest, that wasn't what I was trying to say.  I disclosed my past because max implied that I would make a horrible engineer in response to my accusation of same.  

I suppose I could be horrible, but as you say, is that likely?  I certainly don't think I'm horrible.

Anyway, I was reluctant to be so self-aggrandizing, but max pissed me off.  I should have known better.  (And to clarify something else, I'm not just 14 years out of school, either.  I did 6 years of research for the Army before I took my current position.)
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 14, 2007, 12:43:14 pm
I too saw validity in mgod's point, although it's a little carelessly put, and I didn't particularly want to post in agreement because I thought it might overstate the point.

-Jimmy, it says a lot about your maturity that you see it the way you do. :cheers:

I'm self-taught in most things associated with my profession, but how often I wish that I had more formally learned the fundamentals... my abiding outlook is this:

A degree doesn't actually prove very much, but it does suggest quite a lot.

Good on yer.

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Fox on September 14, 2007, 12:49:48 pm
Yeah, you're right, I'm just so tired of people pulling crap like that in a debate.

Guy1: "Well, actually everything you've just said is wrong."

Guy2: "Oh, ya? What makes your opinion so great? It's not like you're an expert or anything..."

Guy1: "Actually, I am." <provides credentials...>

Guy2: "Well, fine, you might "technically" be an expert, but that doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about."

How can you possibly have a meaningful debate of any kind with a person like this? Do you have to show up at their house, build a skyscraper while they watch just so that they'll attribute some sort of value to your opinion?

Ugh.. I knew I shouldn't have said anything.



EDIT: Yeah like Keith said above, I'm glad to see you that you handled the comment so well and admitted a certain degree of validity to it. It really reflects well.


Fox
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 02:27:40 pm
Thank you Jimmy, I'm glad you saw the point I was making. As I said, it was not meant to be insulting, only to point out that its easy to throw around qualifications and credentials  - we're in an information saturated environment in which people do that all the time. I think it was Marvin Minsky @ MIT who defined "information" as a difference that makes a difference. In theory, stating a degree should qualify as that - but when we encounter so many "experts" who stake out opposing points-of-view, as we do daily, all of whom one-up each other with statements of qualifications, its playing ball on running water. I expected to get grief for that post, but hoped it wouldn't be from you. So thanks again.

What bothers me about the incessant debate everyone is having with Max about these buildings collapsing is that I think people are failing to see what's driving Max, and maybe I am too, but it seems to me that what Max is getting at, however struggling his expression is, is that he's suspicious of the information itself. I am too.

If I didn't have some trust in my brother as a credible person, and he didn't personally know someone he trusts who saw a passenger jet plow into the Pentagon, I'd be just as suspicious of that as I am un-suspicious. We're well beyond being able to trust the evidence of mediated eyes. We can only trust our own, and as Max has repeatedly pointed out, almost all the information being debated regarding the fall of the towers is coming through commercial pipelines, which in the end, are trying to sell us something.

Absent direct experience, its as easy to claim fact as it is to claim credentials. Perhaps Max is out of his depth when it comes to analyzing the images of the tower falling, perhaps not. I'm just a musician and don't know. But when I read this debate, I read people talking across each other about 2 different subjects. I heard for a long time that the floors fell at free-fall speed and that shouldn't be possible. Now it seems it is possible that they could have, but I couldn't find anything that told me for certain that they did - it was presented as fact, but I had no way of knowing if it was in fact, factual.

This is our dilemma - one thing we know for certain, is that much of the so-called information we receive about almost everything doesn't really qualify as information. The signal to noise ratio now is pitiful. And there are innumerable "experts" on payrolls.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 02:37:31 pm
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 09:49


How can you possibly have a meaningful debate of any kind with a person like this? Do you have to show up at their house, build a skyscraper while they watch just so that they'll attribute some sort of value to your opinion?

I hate to say it, but, yes.

I don't doubt Jimmy or very many people in this forum, but of course none of us have any idea if anyone else here is telling the truth about anything unless we know them. I could claim some great degrees, but it would be hard work for you guys to disprove the claims.

And as this happy-go-lucky administration has made so eminently clear, what qualifies someone to head an important governmental division has changed a lot too. No doubt Mr. Gonzales really had those law degrees (although I couldn't say for certain), but he didn't seem to know much about the function of the law. I wish there were some version of coming over and building a skyscraper we could have made him do.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Fox on September 14, 2007, 02:46:42 pm
I think that I see what you're saying and I agree to a point. There's no experience like personal experience, and there is a lot of fraudulent information floating about.

We have to be able to trust somebody at some point though, otherwise incessant fact-checking would ensue and nothing would ever get done.

In hindsight I think that my previous posts are a little aggressive, so I apologize Dan.

I think that I was more frustrated with the wording than the message itself, but then again it didn't really concern me, so...

Sorry.


Fox
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 03:12:21 pm
Thank you for that. I find myself wondering if the inability to know anything for certain that we don't experience directly doesn't presage a gradual return to local economy, local media, local government, local everything.

As to the debate here, we learn to trust in each other, but when things start to get insulting we lose that trust. It was Mr. Jazz who, as I saw it, threw the first punch at Max by suggesting he would make a lousy engineer.

As far as we know, that's true of all of us. As far as we know.

Have you ever found yourself wondering how different the attack in NYC could have turned out? How untrustworthy the national government proved itself to be in response? Even the first move, with global support, of going into Afghanistan, marked a betrayal by Rumsfeld of all the CIA people on the ground.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 14, 2007, 03:35:13 pm
Well, we are supposed to disclose names on some of these forums.  My profile includes mine.  Note that my last name is "Andrews" not "Jazz".   Very Happy

I live in Austin, so you can probably deduce what school awarded me my masters degree.  You can look up my thesis (or at least the abstract) online in their "virtual stacks".  You can find a half dozen patents in my name, too.  

I can pretty easily be vouched for.

So yes, it does perturb me that society has become so distrusting that credentials mean nothing.  We've seen this kind of crap go on far too long in our audio discussions, and we've all lamented the fact that guys like George M have fled for the virtual hills because they just don't have the time to constantly argue with petulant little wannabe-experts who won't bother to learn a bit about the person they're arguing with.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 14, 2007, 04:01:59 pm
what kind of devices have you designed jimmYjazz?

I love the 9/11 date.. it's so mediatic isn't it?

911 emergency.. 11 resembling the twin towers when they were standing..

so much symbolism it almost sounds like it came out of an esoteric brainstorming session!


Jimmyjazz you are an engineer, so please explain WTC7.

and since you are an expert could you please describe the mechanics behind a controlled demolition in detail?

how many skyscrapers have you built?

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Tomas Danko on September 14, 2007, 04:13:25 pm
Would that imply they're going to assault some place in Europe on the 12th of January, since 112 is the equivalent here?

Then again, we usually state dates the other way around, which could mean the 1st of December.

Boy have we them terrorists confused now!

I guess they haven't been able to attack Sweden earlier since we used 90 000 up until a couple of years ago...
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 04:24:01 pm
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 12:35

 they just don't have the time to constantly argue with petulant little wannabe-experts who won't bother to learn a bit about the person they're arguing with.


Oh man. Mr Andrews, that could be argued in so many different directions I don't want to touch it.

A piece on the veracity of the information we receive:

 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore2007 10

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 14, 2007, 06:01:10 pm
You don't remember George tiring of dealing with the "yeah, what do you know" crowd?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 14, 2007, 06:05:28 pm
Why do you care?  Have you designed anything?  A skyscraper, even?

Most of my design work has been on high- and ultra-high power linear electric motors and rotary machines.  I've had to do a great deal of structural analysis on frames, particularly with regard to fault torque and seismic loads.  I've also designed industrial mufflers, turbine alternators, and several control rooms.  No skyscrapers, though.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rankus on September 14, 2007, 06:26:45 pm


Max you are a troll ... You are pushing buttons just to get a reaction... give it up... please  we have been down this path too many times.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 06:44:30 pm
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 15:01

You don't remember George tiring of dealing with the "yeah, what do you know" crowd?

Sure, but no one in this discussion is George. If this was a structural engineering forum, maybe you would be.

And I certainly wasn't arguing with what you know, only with what I can know that you know - and for a little more civility to Max, who clearly has a perspective that no one is going to change. I try to follow this thread to see if I can learn anything. With the little that I know, I agree with the aspect of his PoV that I understand:  All sources of info have become suspect. Which doesn't mean that next time I'm in Austin I wouldn't be interested in a discussion of structural engineering over a meal at that great West Lynn place.

I disagree that Max is trolling.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rollmottle on September 14, 2007, 07:01:13 pm
mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 15:44

With the little that I know, I agree with the aspect of his PoV that I understand:  All sources of info have become suspect.


especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions...


Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 07:07:09 pm
rollmottle wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:01


especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions...

Except for the problem of what constitutes the presentation of "factual evidence". Which is the entire point.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Fox on September 14, 2007, 07:50:44 pm
This is getting very tiresome... Dan, I know you're playing devil's advocate here and you've made your point very clear, so let's just sort one thing out if we can and move on:

I will admit that it is possible that every source of information out there is corrupt, it is possible that Jim is misrepresenting his qualifications and it is possible that the world trade center collapses were an inside job


IF


you'll at least admit that that at the end of the day, as a rational human being, you've found these scenarios to be overwhelmingly unlikely.

If something can't be "proven," then it all comes down to a matter of probabilities, doesn't it? How likely is it that solely for the purpose of this argument Jim made up all of his qualifications or is pointing you to the thesis of another Jim Andrews, how likely is it that the vast majority of people, experts or otherwise have looked at what happened and come to the wrong conclusion, how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit? None of these scenarios can be proven either way, but come on, they aren't bloody likely, are they?

Let's get real, and stop this now. I happen to think that you are  actually a very intelligent and rational man, and that you've made your point quite well. I also, however don't think that you necessarily believe in or live your life by what you're saying and are just trying to bring another perspective to light.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I also think it would be a disservice to everyone reading this thread to pretend that you are really this paranoid and skeptical of every scrap of information that comes your way. This is the real world, not the Truman Show, and you know it. You don't seem to be the type of guy that has absolutely no faith in the good aspects of human nature to me. I've known more dudes like this than I care to mention, and they aren't fun to be around.

I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement.



All the best,

Fox
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rollmottle on September 14, 2007, 07:52:00 pm
mgod wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:07

rollmottle wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:01


especially sources of info that still, in the face of massive factual evidence to the contrary, believe the 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were destroyed by controlled demolitions...

Except for the problem of what constitutes the presentation of "factual evidence". Which is the entire point.

DS



this is bullshit. that anybody can sit at their computer, watch a youtube video (TV is not trying to sell you something in this case I guess so it's OK to rely on this evidence?), and think "hey, looks like a controlled demolition...IT WAS! IT WAS!", be COMPLETELY disproven time and time again by persons with scientific backgrounds who do science for a living and using scientific analysis and actual data (not to mention corroborating this evidence with the thousands of eyewitness accounts), and then dismiss this analysis because the "data is suspect to begin with" is such a bullshit argument. CT's set themselves up with a nice logic loophole so they never have to prove or demonstrate a goddamned thing. i call bullshit.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rollmottle on September 14, 2007, 08:00:05 pm
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50

This is getting very tiresome... Dan, I know you're playing devil's advocate here and you've made your point very clear, so let's just sort one thing out if we can and move on:

I will admit that it is possible that every source of information out there is corrupt, it is possible that Jim is misrepresenting his qualifications and it is possible that the world trade center collapses were an inside job


IF


you'll at least admit that that at the end of the day, as a rational human being, you've found these scenarios to be overwhelmingly unlikely.

If something can't be "proven," then it all comes down to a matter of probabilities, doesn't it? How likely is it that solely for the purpose of this argument Jim made up all of his qualifications or is pointing you to the thesis of another Jim Andrews, how likely is it that the vast majority of people, experts or otherwise have looked at what happened and come to the wrong conclusion, how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit? None of these scenarios can be proven either way, but come on, they aren't bloody likely, are they?

Let's get real, and stop this now. I happen to think that you are  actually a very intelligent and rational man, and that you've made your point quite well. I also, however don't think that you necessarily believe in or live your life by what you're saying and are just trying to bring another perspective to light.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I also think it would be a disservice to everyone reading this thread to pretend that you are really this paranoid and skeptical of every scrap of information that comes your way. This is the real world, not the Truman Show, and you know it. You don't seem to be the type of guy that has absolutely no faith in the good aspects of human nature to me. I've known more dudes like this than I care to mention, and they aren't fun to be around.

I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement.



All the best,

Fox


Very well said.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2007, 09:29:29 pm
Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50

I really hope that I've interpreted your arguments correctly, Dan, and I hope that you'll correct me if I've made an error in judgement.

All the best,

Fox

Well, you've got it right for the most part Fox, and I appreciate you putting in the time. The comment from the other guy means as much to me as random bullshit. I'm not really doubting Jim in any way. I was just saying that he went off on a pointless tangent in the argument by impugning Max, which inevitably gets countered, and then when backed into the corner that created had to qualify himself, but had to do so in such a way that those qualifiers themselves don't really give us the meaning of the man. Most of us don't really know each other here. I never suggested that Jim misrepresented his qualifications; only that many people whom we might not really want to rely on have similar qualifications. Max has some pretty good qualifications himself I believe.

Do I think all mediated information is suspect? Yes, I do. But I don't live my life that way, because I focus my life on my immediate world. I get so much "information" of contrasting nature from so many directions that it all becomes a wash; we all do.

The Buddha denied being enlightened, he said he was simply awake. To me, being awake in the modern mediated world means observing all this and not passing judgement. I watched the towers fall, I felt my throat tighten and my heart break at the site of people leaping from them - that much I know. Is it possible that there was a conspiracy to bring them down? A "Pearl Harbor-like" attack on America to get the public into line behind an attack on Iraq? I think so - yes, its an absolute possibility. Was it possible J. Edgar Hoover, the great defender of internal security, was compromised by the Mafia for 50 years? No it wasn't, until it was. Now its fact.

I don't care how many documentaries and how many youtube videos are watched by how many people. None of that proves to me anything, one way or the other. But I am very interested in what people who identify themselves as structural engineers have to say, and equally interested in what someone who is aware that all the avenues of information sourcing are commercial avenues has to say. They are equally valid to me.

Youtube is no more free and democratic than Wikipedia is authoritative. John McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby and it probably cost him the Republican nomination in 2000. Except he didn't - anywhere but in Karl Rove's mind. I'm sorry, but all information is suspect. The United States government and many others have been actively engaged in disinformation for many, many years. The waters of public discourse are radically polluted, on purpose. This is not conspiracy theory, this is public record. So the problem isn't that all information out there is corrupt, the problem is that its possible that it is. And the consensus is often proved wrong.

I would happily have lunch with either Max or Jim and hear their way of seeing the world. Yours too. (Rollmottle maybe not so much...) What matters to me is personal experience, yours, mine, all of ours.

It would be someone else's judgement as to whether or not I'm paranoid, but it doesn't mean anything to me. When my daughter was 5 we saw a TV ad for some baby formula touting its "comfort proteins" and claiming to be the only product that had them. She asked me "That's a lie isn't it?" I knew I was doing the right job. Its heartbreaking that its this way, but it is.

What I see when I really look at the world, well if you want to do that, we should do it privately by email or something. But in this thread I see people struggling, and in some ways with great beauty. Which is, btw, the same thing I see when I look at the White House (even if I might wish they were clearing brush somewhere...).

DS

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: forgetmeknots on September 14, 2007, 10:24:20 pm
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

Here's an interesting interview with Stanley Hilton - Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, lawyer, represents 400 plus plaintiffs - most of them victims of 9/11.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 14, 2007, 10:32:42 pm
Let me be clear about something:  I don't consider myself "qualified" to state that the twin towers fell because of structural damage imparted by a commercial jetliner.  The reason I'm not qualified to make such a statement has nothing to do with my technical capabilities (or lack thereof), but because

I HAVE NOT DONE THE WORK.

The gentleman discussed in the original post has done the work, or at least some of it, and his qualifications are unassailable.  Furthermore, his peers have judged his work as being sufficient for publication in a highly-regarded technical journal.

I'm sorry, but his work deserves far more consideration than the seat-of-the-pants dismissal being offered by various laypersons.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: J.J. Blair on September 15, 2007, 12:34:06 am
Tonight, even one of the biggest skeptics, Bill Maher, told all the WTC conspiracy theorists to get a life, and stop asking him to talk about it on his show.  He also said that they have to be totally fucking stupid to believe what they do.  Too bad they won't listen.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: John Ivan on September 15, 2007, 04:06:44 am
jimmyjazz wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 18:05

Why do you care?  Have you designed anything?  A skyscraper, even?

Most of my design work has been on high- and ultra-high power linear electric motors and rotary machines.  I've had to do a great deal of structural analysis on frames, particularly with regard to fault torque and seismic loads.  I've also designed industrial mufflers, turbine alternators, and several control rooms.  No skyscrapers, though.



Honestly, I find this sort of thing to be quite impressive. The only thing's I've ever really Designed are songs.

Congrats' on what appears to be a fine body of work. Seems you like your job and that, all by it's self is something to be proud of..
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 15, 2007, 07:24:24 am
what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that.

steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly, and for that to happen there has to be massive amounts of direct heat, not the kind of fire that was in WTC towers.

the black smoke is a symptom of low-oxygen fire

firemen were nearby and were confident they could put out the fire.

so there's no way the steel could have reached those temperatures especially when you are in such a well-cooled position (up high) and you have the heat-sink effect of the steel structure.

for those of you who do not know what a heat sink is, all you have to do is look at the fin-like metal parts which power transistors and voltage regulators are bolted to in the power supplies of your gear, or look at air-cooled engines such as some motorcycle.

it is nearly impossible to solder a wire to a metal chassis with a normal soldering iron because the chassis disperses the heat instantly through thermal conduction in the metal, whereas a small wire which has a small surface area can be soldered quite easily.

same thing applies to welding

in order to heat metal to the point that it begins to soften you need intense heat.

ordinary fire does not provide enough intense heat, otherwise those old wood-burning stoves would have all crumbled to the floor in a glowing heap.

what you need is intense localized heat such as a cutting torch, or HUGE amounts of controlled (insulated from the outside temperature) heat such as you would find in a refinery.

the wtc towers burned for a couple of hours at low heat.. it is NOT scientific to assume that the metal was weakened.

WTC7? hello?

as Lord Chesterfield wrote to his son, FORM is more important than content when you are trying to convince the public.

the tone of the words used, the calmness in the delivery and the emotional security you give off count a lot more than the technical truth, because the vast majority will never truly go beyond appearance.. the vast majority do not have the technical capacity, nor do they care to.

There have been PLENTY of cases where political influence and money were used to get a 'scientific' or 'truthful' explanation out of academic people..

when people can gain money, fear losing their jobs, or are convinced that the lies they tell are doing more good than bad, they will indeed lie.

it hasn't been the first time, but for many people it IS the first time because they dont bother looking at the past..

nobody, that is, except the political classes... which are not that superficial when it comes to power.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 15, 2007, 08:30:47 am
mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 02:29

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
-- Albert Einstein



If you're going to quote Albert Einstein in your sig, then perhaps it would be a good idea to consider what kind of man he was, and how the rational mind and the intuitive mind figured in his life.

The thing is that it wasn't an either/or relationship. Einstein was a scientist, rational thought was the foundation and the structure of everything he did (professionally at least I know little of his personal life), intuitive thought was the thing that lifted him from being another scientist to being a genius. His intuition allowed him to jump to new and sometimes surprising (especially at the time) ideas, but these ideas were never irational, the scientific process still applied. His theories matched the evidence he had, and they were used to devise additional tests, all a rational process.

Einstein is viewed as a genius because his formidable intuition enhanced his formidable rationality and moved science forwards... if the two had been in conflict he'd have been viewed as a nutter... but not by us because we'd never have heard of him.

Now with reference to Max. I'm sorry but I would say that your interpretation doesn't match what he actually says. Max isn't saying that all information is suspect, he isn't saying that we should keep an open mind, he is saying that he knows the truth. Not only that but he presents "evidence". Most of my responses have simply pointed out the flaws in this supposed evidence. As someone already pointed out, he tells us all to turn off our TVs and think, but then he presents us with a bit of video footage, makes a statement (which is mostly just parroting what some conspiracy website said) and shows that he hasn't actually thought about it in any depth at all.

I am in even less of a position than Jimmy Jazz to be able to state precisely what happened to the towers, but I do have enough understanding of physics (and you could too if you chose to study it, this isn't esoteric stuff, it's textbook A-level physics) to for example be able to say that despite what Max repeatedly claims (with no attempt to support it) details like the rate of collapse are quite within the bounds of what would be expected.

Basically it's all very well you saying that all evidence is suspect, and somehow concluding that Max's viewpoint is therefore equally valid... but Max's viewpoint is often nullified by his own evidence! He repeatedly states "this is not possible"... he is repeatedly provably wrong... he repeatedly states "this proves this"... he is repeatedly provably wrong... and that's without any reference to Fox news or Popular mechanics


Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 15, 2007, 09:06:08 am
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24

what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that.


Pot, meet kettle
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24


steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly, and for that to happen there has to be massive amounts of direct heat, not the kind of fire that was in WTC towers.


This is quite simply UNTRUE. It is well established that the critical temperature of structural steel (the point at which it loses a great deal of its structural strength) is considerably lower than that. For example livingsteel.org gives a range of 450-650 celcius. The colour temperature of steel in that range goes from Blue-Green to Blood Red, a long way from glowing brightly.
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:24


the black smoke is a symptom of low-oxygen fire


Black smoke is also a symptom of various combustible materials. An office is a veritable chemical soup of plastics, fibres, foams, metals, paints and god knows what else, it would be a miracle if you didn't get black smoke off that.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 15, 2007, 10:28:28 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 21:34

Tonight, even one of the biggest skeptics, Bill Maher, told all the WTC conspiracy theorists to get a life, and stop asking him to talk about it on his show.  He also said that they have to be totally fucking stupid to believe what they do.  Too bad they won't listen.

He's a very funny guy. He was also very much in favor of invading Iraq. Sometimes he's wrong. But he's always funny.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 15, 2007, 10:40:14 am
 
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 07:24


steel does not lose strength until it begins to glow brightly


Not true.  The strength and stiffness of most structural steel members are cut in half at temperatures ~ 1,000 F.  Steel doesn't beging to "glow brightly" until 1,500 F or so.  In point of fact, the transition from normal appearance to a dark red glow happens to correlate fairly well to the critical temperature, or the point at which strength and Young's modulus have been reduced to 50% of their room-temperature values.

"Strength" seems to be a buzzword of sorts for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but most don't even appear to possess a rudimentary understanding of its relevance.  Strength (or more correctly "yield strength", "ultimate strength", "fatigue strength", etc.) is a material property against which stresses in a part are compared to determine onset of failure.  (Even that is over-simplifying the issue.)  For the very simple case of an axially-loaded structural member -- a bolt with no lateral shearing loads, for instance -- it is fair to assume that a reduction in strength of 50% correlates to 50% less load-carrying capacity.  Is that the whole story in the case of the Twin Towers?

Certainly not.  For one thing, increased temperatures leads to increased stresses.  This is because all common materials (except water) expand as their temperature increases.  However, a structural member is typically constrained at either end, and perhaps several midpoints.  These constraints disallow physical expansion, and guess what happens -- internal stresses occur.

Furthermore, the localized application of heat leads to temperature gradients within the parts in question, and temperature gradients lead to more complicated stress states.

Higher stresses and lower strengths are a bad combination.

To take this one step further, consider how a column might fail without its stresses exceeding the yield strength of its material.  There is a very real phenomenon known as "elastic buckling", which you can visualize by standing an ordinary measuring ruler on end and pressing down on the top.  Notice how it begins to bulge out in the middle?  What do you think will happen if you continue to add load to the part?  It will "snap", right?  Well, the load at which that happens can often correspond to internal stresses well less than the yield strength of the material from which the part was fabricated!  The simplest explanation is that the critical (elastic) buckling load is not proportional to material strength, but to Young's modulus, which is related to "stiffness".  As I discussed above, Young's modulus of structural steel is also compromised by 50% or more at temperatures around 1,000 F.  

What does all this mean?  For starters, the problem is complicated, and cannot be dismissed with hand-waving arguments about "strength" and "temperature" and "color".  Any discussion about the ability of the WTC towers to withstand impact by a commercial jetliner and its resultant fire is either a discussion of the real engineering issues at hand or it is a waste of time.  

For max and other True Believers, I suppose it could be both.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ryansteele on September 15, 2007, 10:57:48 am
hey guys, been reading around here for quite a while...of course my first post will be completely non-audio related....

anyways, i've followed these arguments in various forms for years. figured you guys might enjoy this 3 part series on the physics involved in 9/11.

enjoy!

Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer, presents his three separate reports, undertaken for CounterPunch.

   Part One is his report on the Physics of 9/11.
   http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

   Part Two (published here for the first time) is his report on the Thermodynamics of 9/11.
   http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
 
   Part Three, "Dark Fire", is his report on the collapse of the World Trade Center's Building 7.
   http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 15, 2007, 11:34:19 am
Fox, I was thinking about this part of your If/Then proposition:

Fox wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 16:50

how likely is it that a cabal of high-ranking American officials, demolition workers, local security forces, etc. conspired to commit mass murder of their own people for a paltry profit?


There's another way to ask this of course and I'm sure it will be just as tiresome to you. How likely is this:

During the Clinton years, a group of people who had come up during various Republican administrations, getting into higher posts each time around, put together something they call the Project for the New American Century. In 97/98 they submit a letter to Clinton calling for the necessity of invading Iraq and disposing of the man the US supported and armed - Saddam Hussein, who had gone rogue on them; who was no longer cooperating with the US. The letter suggests that it might take a "Pearl Harbor-like attack on American soil" to get the public behind them.

Following a highly dubious election, involving massive manipulation of public perception and "facts", and enormous legal wrangling (conducted equally by Republicans and Democrats, but with the Republicans shouting loudest about the Democrats doing it), most of the PNAC folk are now in the highest positions possible. During their first summer in the White House, the US assembles a massive force in the Persian Gulf, poised and ready to strike Afghanistan. The new administration has been trying to strong-arm the Taliban with financial incentives into allowing Halliburton to build a pipeline for Unocal across their sovereign nation.

Now up to this point we are dealing in "fact" or history. These are things which actually happened. They aren't the fantasies of conspiracy theorists who Bill Maher and JJ so love. All this is public record, although like Bush's ignoring the August intelligence report titled "Bin Laden preparing to strike US" in favor of clearing brush, none of this was very well publicized.

Allegedly, and although this seems well-established I haven't seen enough data to say for sure, the week of September 11 2001, the entire northeast military air command goes into an exercise plan, a plan supervised by a Mr. Cheney of the Administration. This may or may not to be true. So I don't yet call it history or conspiracy. However, if true, the northeast isn't very well protected, communications are in a state of non-standard use, and response time is likely impaired.

The Towers are hit - they fall. As it turns out, 15 of the 19 hijackers are Saudi citizens. The next day, although there is a nation wide ban on any flying, a large jet travels the country stopping in various cities, picking up Saudi nationals, including many members of the Bin Laden family, who have been in business with key administration figures for 30 years, and whisks them out of the country. Concurrent with this, the administration meets and Rumsfeld and Cheney immediately suggesting connecting this to Iraq. The Saudi connection is ignored.

Against Rumsfeld's wishes, Bush gives the CIA a 30-day head start on going into Afghanistan - counting on the Pentagon for backup. When the time comes, Rumsfeld refuses the back-up, and most of the CIA people in Afghanistan are killed.

Finally the USA invades Iraq - we break it, we buy it, we start building dozens of permanent bases in the territory. The PNAC membership now has what it wants, and an unprecedented transfer of American taxpayer's money into private hands is underway (need it be said, willingly because of the fear the taxpayer is in?) via the military's use of private contractors at unprecedented levels to do a huge portion of the infrastructure and actual manned military work on the ground. The poor get poorer, the rich get richer. The profits are anything but paltry. AND, the pipeline across Afghanistan is built, but it would likely be seen as a wacko conspiracy theory to make anything of the fact that the man the US appoints president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, had been Unocal's lobbyist to the Taliban.

Now Fox, almost all of this is fact, history, so the if/then HAS to be, IF all this happened, THEN how likely is it that:

- these folks were simply so lucky?

- that the son of a family who were in business with the family whose son was now president caused all this by himself? And if so, how did he get so lucky as to have almost all the fighter jets out of the way that day?

- that so many Americans died at such a precisely opportune moment to get the public to support this massive transfer of their money?

- that given all this that the beneficiaries of this disaster were simply poised to exploit it but no in any way involved in it?

The US of A is on a permanent war footing - it has been since WWII, but now it is with public approval, the War Against That Which Cannot Be Fought by War.

How likely is it that the same people who were willing to lie our way into the killing and maiming of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the killing and maiming of thousands of young Americans, didn't have it in them to do the same on domestic soil?

Just asking.

And finally, given the history, given all these If/Then possibilities, how likely is it that the information coming at me about how the towers fell is without manipulation?

DS

PS - I'm not suggesting anything about how the towers collapsed - that's beyond my ability to see or to know. I'm suggesting that there are well-grounded and logical reasons to suspect that things aren't necessarily what we're told.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 15, 2007, 12:14:24 pm
The political people responsible are behaving in the same way that other politicians and men of state and affairs have been doing for centuries.

I am not saying that their behaviour is normal in the human sense or the moral sense, but it is historically and perhaps from a natural point of view.

wars have been fought over the centuries for the same reasons, and to understand war one needs to look back across the thousands of years.

there is a reason why the Lion, who feeds on the weaker, slower animals is considered noble.

a steel beam does not buckle and break vertically, it may bend and lose its shape but it will not buckle verically under normal circumstances.

the steel beams used in construction are not like rulers they are usually H-shaped or t-shaped to make sure they don't buckle.

the amount of force it would take to get the steel beams which were at room temperature in the floors underneath the fire (heat travels upward BTW) to 'buckle' and break into pieces cannot be attributed to gravity.

h-beams which were encapsulated in cement (for rigidy) in the central coloumn would need so much energy to destroy the structure that the weight of the top floors could not possibly do such a clean job of destruction.

the building if it were to have fallen under structural failure would have resisted to the fall of the uppermost floors.

the resistance would not have been linear across the building: some areas of the floor, such as the real-estate areas which were designed to hold only the floors and the load on the floors, would fail before the central coloumn and the debris would fall through the floors, leaving the central coloumn alone, for example..

the outer shell would have sheared off in bigger chunks at different times etc. etc.

instead we have what the media calls 'pancake effect'.. a term coined and repeated enough times as to seem official.. most americans eat pancakes in the morning at one time or another..

the building falls down steadily and predictably..

but only a building with a cellular structure, identical density/mass and resistance across the whole surface area of the cross/section of the building COULD fall so steadily and predictably UNDER GRAVITY's effect..

it is EASY to do this on the other hand by blowing out each floor underneath at a specific timed interval.

to quote NY firemen on the scene 'boom-boom-boom-boom'.

this is purely a technical consideration.. and not tied to political issues of any kind.


Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ryansteele on September 15, 2007, 12:19:05 pm
max,

i highly suggest you take the time to read the three articles posted above.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 15, 2007, 12:24:48 pm
I did.

I strongly suggest that you read other articles..

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5272/

the above talks about mr garcia, his connections with the government, and his inability to explain WTC7's collapse

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 15, 2007, 01:09:20 pm
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 12:14


a steel beam does not buckle and break vertically, it may bend and lose its shape but it will not buckle verically under normal circumstances.


This is unreal.  I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Do you really consider these "normal circumstances", max?  Of course a properly-designed structural member will not buckle under normal loads (gravity, wind, snow, etc.).  The loads presented to the WTC during and following jet impact were NOT normal and were NOT accounted for in the design process (nor should they have been).  Add fire to the mix and you have a situation in which buckling and other failure modes are not only understandable but highly likely.

Tell me, max:  what engineers are you relying on for your information?  Does the overwhelmingly large majority of expert opinion mean NOTHING to you?  If you felt a lump in your neck, and visited 100 doctors, 99 of which told you that biopsy results indicate you have Hodgkin's disease, but one said he thought you you have a cold, would you really put your health in that single doctor's opinion?  I'm telling you, that's probably higher odds than you'll get on your WTC theories.

Quote:

the steel beams used in construction are not like rulers they are usually H-shaped or t-shaped to make sure they don't buckle.


The different cross-sectional geometries of beams no doubt change the critical buckling loads for a given length, but that's a simple function of something called "radius of gyration", or the square root of moment of inertia to cross-sectional area.  What's your point?

Quote:

the amount of force it would take to get the steel beams which were at room temperature in the floors underneath the fire (heat travels upward BTW) to 'buckle' and break into pieces cannot be attributed to gravity.


Oh, poppycock.  First of all, heat CONDUCTS up and down in a steel member equally well.  Heat transfer due to CONVECTION may be stronger "up" than "down", but CONDUCTION dominates CONVECTION in a steel beam.  Give me a fucking break, max.  I'm rapidly losing any patience I tried to muster up with you.

Furthermore, the forces associated with momentum transfer from a falling object to a stationary object below can well exceed the static gravity load (mass*gravitational acceleration) those floors would normally possess.


Quote:

h-beams which were encapsulated in cement (for rigidy) in the central coloumn would need so much energy to destroy the structure that the weight of the top floors could not possibly do such a clean job of destruction.


Cement (actually concrete) doesn't add much rigidity to a steel beam -- a steel beam adds rigidity to the concrete structure, not to mention orders-of-magnitude more tensile load capacity.  Again, you're out of your mind.

Once again, I find myself disappointed in the fact that I have entertained your bullshit, and so now I will take my leave and limit my replies as much as humanly possible to those who actually care to discusss the issues at hand with an open mind.  You, max, possess no such thing.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 15, 2007, 01:10:07 pm
OTOH, Alexander Cockburn has great credibility with me, owing to his journalistic track record.

Now, if you want to talk conspiracy theories, here's the real shit:
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bluebeam.html

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ryansteele on September 15, 2007, 01:26:29 pm
thanks for the link.

good to know that we can just disregard mr. garcia, as it turns out he's just another goverment misinformation agent on the case.

along the same lines, i figured that you would be interested to know that noam chomsky is really just a "controlled asset of the new world order".

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05. shtml

but in all seriousness, lets say that the "government", or some segment thereof did, in fact, engineer the most technically complicated stunt in history in the middle of the most populated area of the country.

there are still far, far more serious crimes this government is guilty of.

the problem with most 9/11 theories is that they seem to regard 3,000 americans killed as a priority over the 655,000 iraqis killed since 9/11, and in that regard, serve as a great distraction and divider of a serious, effective "left".
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ryansteele on September 15, 2007, 01:28:51 pm
ok, cool...you regard cockburn as credible.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 15, 2007, 02:15:26 pm
Yes, I read it.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 15, 2007, 02:17:05 pm
mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 16:34


PS - I'm not suggesting anything about how the towers collapsed - that's beyond my ability to see or to know. I'm suggesting that there are well-grounded and logical reasons to suspect that things aren't necessarily what we're told.


You'll get no argument from me on this.

There are people in positions of power who had motive to instigate, encourage or simply ignore the events leading up to 911.

There are also people who had motive to abuse the public's reaction to those events... and a fair bit of evidence to say that they did.

However when it comes to the specifics of the events on 9/11 the conspiracy theories involving explosive demolition just fall apart on so many levels. Not only do you have an insurmountable problem of how you actually place all those explosives (all over the building if you believe the "squib" theories) in buildings that have 20,000 people using them, and the problem of how collapse started at the floors that had fires for an hour (explosives are not fireproof), and then the hundreds of professionals who worked directly at ground zero (including demolitions experts) or with the wreckage who would all have to be either stupid or corrupt, but then you come to an interesting point... it would be completely unneccessary.

The initiation of the collapse is a complex thing to work out, and the specifics of the complete collapse are too, but if you want to think about it intuitively... how many buildings, already robbed of their structural integrity would survive having a 15 floor building dropped on top of them? Basically once the collapse had started and progressed a couple of floors, the only way was down. Any demolitions expert would have known this, so why would they increase their risk of exposure by putting explosives many floors down?

So you couldn't use any explosive that the demolitions experts at implosionworld.com know about (or that I have been able to find information on) at the impact point due to fire, and there would be no point in putting any below the impact point since they would make no difference to the final result, makes for a really silly plan from where I'm standing.

When it comes down to it, if you wanted to bring down the twin towers in a way that made it look like two airliners were flown into them by terrorists... the best way would probably be to fly two airliners into them!

There are a number of ways that people involved in government could have been involved in 9/11, I'm not accusing anyone, but for example I don't find it inconceivable that someone got wind of what was being planned and decided to obfuscate or hide the information because they thought America needed a shakeup (the "Pearl Harbour" style incident), hell I wouldn't be all that shocked if someone showed video footage of Donald Rumsfeld handing the terrorists their plane tickets, but the stuff Max puts forward is just pushing probability to the limit.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 15, 2007, 02:33:17 pm
So then, what we can come to is: the simplest solution is the likeliest. But it seems to me the problem is there are a number of ways to perceive what the simplest solution might be.

For one thing - let's assume for a second that there was PNAC complicity in these acts - that doesn't necessarily lead us to controlled demolition. Two planes flying into the towers, killing the passengers and near occupants, would probably be sufficient to horrify the nation. One interpretation of events might be that the towers falling was unexpected.

I saw an interview my brother gave in a South African paper shortly after this all occurred. He was asked why no one had anticipated this event. His reply was that this was the most anticipated event in history, or something like that - that our intelligence has known since 1985 that "the terrorists" were training for exactly something like this - using hijacked planes as bombs - as early as 1985, in Iran.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 15, 2007, 03:02:47 pm
To be honest I never understood the apparant surprise at the very idea of crashing a plane into a building. Doesn't anybody at the FBI or CIA read Tom Clancy novels?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jay Kadis on September 15, 2007, 03:18:23 pm
A B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945.  It's not a novel idea, although that one was an accident.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: rollmottle on September 15, 2007, 05:07:16 pm
mgod wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 11:33

So then, what we can come to is: the simplest solution is the likeliest. But it seems to me the problem is there are a number of ways to perceive what the simplest solution might be.

For one thing - let's assume for a second that there was PNAC complicity in these acts - that doesn't necessarily lead us to controlled demolition.


precisely. and this is the heart of the frustration on this and other 9/11 conspiracy theory threads -- whether there was a conspiracy or not, does not prove nor even suggest a controlled demolition occurred on 9/11. i don't believe any of us are arguing whether there was or was not a conspiracy. Jon said it well...it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was some government foreknowledge or complicity in the event. however, when it comes to Max's ill-conceived claims about the physical mechanics and science of how the towers fell as his PROOF of a conspiracy, his claims are so easily and scientifically dismissed as to be totally laughable. this alleged conspiracy (at least as far as explosives in the tower go) is then quite easily dismissed. to date, there hasn't been one shred of evidence pointing to a controlled demolition on any of the WTC buildings.

it is absolutely mind boggling to me that somebody (who seems to be a reasonably intelligent being in regards to other matters) would still make these absurd claims after piles upon piles of scientific evidence has incontrovertibly disproven and explained every "truth point" that they say points to evidence of a controlled demolition. this forum falls pretty Left and threads critical of this government and its leadership are always at hand -- suspecting our government of corruption is nothing new here. but when it comes to irrational and wildly unbased claims, i would expect any intelligent thinker to be outraged.

PS - FWIW, i'd still have lunch with you. you might be surprised.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 15, 2007, 06:55:38 pm
The beat goes on:

   http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/9 11_the_big_coverup.html

Below is the article - the page itself is a little glitchy right now but the article there has many links to further info (Bill Maher and JJ notwithstanding).

9/11 - the big cover-up?
Peter Tatchell

September 12, 2007 10:30 AM

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;
and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:

1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.

2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.

3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.

4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.

Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?

What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: CCC on September 15, 2007, 07:56:37 pm
You guys all really need to get lives.

The only thing more pointless than these conspiracy theories is trying to talk sense to a bunch of crackpots.

Carry on, as you were.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Fox on September 15, 2007, 10:53:58 pm
Actually Dan, I didn't find your answers tiresome at all this time. You've posted some good points, and I wanted to thank you for being so honest about yourself and your philosophies. I feel like now we're really having a productive debate, and all respect to you for it. Maybe someday I'll take you up on that lunch thing, or better yet, a few beers. Very Happy

I just want to point out before I really get into it that I didn't mean to imply that you really doubted Jim's credentials. I hope you didn't take it that way. I don't think that you're paranoid either, I was just saying that some of your posts had come across as paranoid to me and my gut told me that they didn't really represent who you are. I just wanted to see if I was right. Also, I find that even though we don't seem to agree on a few points, I've come to respect you a little more with each post, so kudos, man.

Okay, you're right about this: The administration did have both the power and in certain cases the motivation to be complicit in the attacks. Whether or not they were remains to be seen.

Personally, I think that what really happened was somewhere in the middle ground; I don't think that the administration planned the attacks, and I also don't think that they did everything they could to stop them. I think that they probably did, quite callously, figure out the best way to capitalize on the tragedy afterwards, but I really can't back this up with anything more than "It just seems to be what's most likely."

If everything you said a few posts back is true (and I don't know that it is, but I have no reason to doubt you), that certainly does imply a certain degree of complacency. I think that the part about getting the Saudi's out of the country was simply protecting business partners from popular backlash and/or physical attacks though. Seems to me that if it was planned out from the start they wouldn't have been in the country in the first place.

You're right about us not knowing the real story behind what happened, and yes, you are right to be suspicious, but general suspicions about what happened that day isn't what this thread was initially about. It was about a reputable report in which Max's claims were refuted. I'm not here to demonize Max or anything, but if you've followed the other threads that deal with this topic as well as this one, certain patterns emerge.

For instance, Max has said several times that there is no explanation for the 45 degree "cuts" in the steel beams, and Jon has provided an explanation for those cuts. Max has said that the building couldn't have naturally collapsed the way it did, but numerous reputable sources have explained, using repeatable and empirical maths that in some cases have been peer reviewed by an entire profession, that it was a natural collapse. Max has also said that there are squibs visibly detonating, but an explanation has been provided for that as well (although this particular explanation seems less concrete than the others), but he also ignores the fact that using squibs would have required miles upon miles of detonation cord running throughout the entire building which would have certainly been noticed by someone. I and many others could go on and on. The point here is that each time he has been offered an explanation for his "inexplicable" phenomena, he has figuratively put his fingers in his ears and chanted "la la li la la, I'm not listening," or pointed to a youtube video or some such nonsense to "prove" his points, or worse, has haphazardly made statements that are just plain wrong. See the "steel doesn't weaken" fiasco above. I am willing to keep an open mind and consider the notion that the US government demolished the buildings, but Max doesn't seem to be open to the notion that they didn't. I'm sure he's a smart guy, (Max, you have an EE degree IIRC, don't you?) but the key difference that I've noted is his  inability to consider another POV.

If you are going to make claims that go against the popular opinion or current scientific data, that's fine with me; Hell, I'd even encourage it! But if you are going to say, "Hey everybody, you're all wrong!" then the burden of proof falls on YOU to prove to ME and everybody else that you're arguing against why WE'RE wrong, and Max simply hasn't done it. When Max writes a paper that can disprove, using proper calculations and empirical data, the calculations in the report that this thread was initially about, then I'll read it and consider it on the same level as the "official" report.

Until then, in my eyes, Max is the online equivalent of the man on the street wearing a "The End is Near" sign, preaching to the masses with nothing to back it up. I'm sorry, but as things stand right now, I feel that it would be folly to hold Max's opinion in the same regard as the numerous reports that have actually done the necessary work to prove something. And might I add that it is proof, because even though we lack the firsthand experience in the subject, if you or I were so inclined we could repeat the calculations provided within and come to the same conclusions that the author(s) have. It doesn't get much more solid than that.

I'm looking forward to your take on this, man!


All the Best,


Fox


Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 16, 2007, 01:12:34 am
I guess my thought is that eventually one of those guys wearing those signs will be right - the end will be near. I'm always grateful for the voice howling in the wilderness. As one of my musical partners once pointed out to me, too much consensus spooks me. Somebody has to be the Gomer who can't march in lock step. We need them - if only to force us to double check our thinking.

Max has done a very good job of that.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Andy Peters on September 16, 2007, 01:23:40 am
ssltech wrote on Fri, 14 September 2007 08:41

In the case of most mechanical or structural engineers, "failure is not an option".


A professor of mechanical engineering at my alma mater once gave the following response to a student who was pleading for extra credit on an exam:

"You build bridge, bridge fall down: no partial credit."

-a
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: John Ivan on September 16, 2007, 07:00:10 am
maxdimario wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 07:24

what it really boils down to for most people is what they want to believe, and most people do not wish to go beyond that.




Total nonsense.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Barkley McKay on September 16, 2007, 07:11:36 am
err...

index.php/fa/6196/0/
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 16, 2007, 09:39:07 am
"These Romans are crazy..."
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 16, 2007, 11:46:12 am
Fox wrote on Sat, 15 September 2007 19:53

I think that the part about getting the Saudi's out of the country was simply protecting business partners from popular backlash and/or physical attacks though. Seems to me that if it was planned out from the start they wouldn't have been in the country in the first place.

I'm thinking about this. Given that there was a national order to keep all vehicles out of the skies, doesn't it strike you as unusual to make an exception here? There are plenty of ways to protect people within the borders and on the ground. Your supposition about them being out of the country in the first place does make sense, unless things didn't go according to plan. When I heard about it, my assumption was that it was an adaptive move.

I see it as an executive order, handed down by the unitary executive from the executive he takes orders from, the matriarch of the Bush crime family. In the normal context of a national emergency, this exception/violation would be a major issue, but under these people, who finally have what they've always felt they deserved, i.e. complete control, its simply a day in the life.

You have to remember that is the same family who had to be stopped by governmental order from being Hitler's bag-men even after war was declared between their own country and Germany. Prescott Bush continued to work for the "enemy" well into WWII.

DS  
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 16, 2007, 12:14:37 pm
Regarding the link where a new religion will be used for a new world order..

..I'm not sure I want to get into this argument as well, because it hasn't happened materially so it is just speculation at this point, not something to be observed and analyzed through factual evidence.

but it does have to do with the public's perception of reality, and how masses react to information which is presented to them by the media etc.. so in that sense it is related

my girlfriend introduced me to medjugorje which is a place in the middle of nowhere in eastern europe where the Virgin Mary has been giving out weekly messages to believers for years.

she has been there and there is a constant flow of people who go since the 80's

one of the things which is 'rumored' is that there are strange shapes which appear in the sky and that the sun becomes double or something to that effect.

It is hard for me to believe any of that, because of the way I approach truth, but for some people it is easy enough to believe.

I was showing her how christianity has taken many of its traditions, images and icons directly from the previous religious traditions, and she continued to say that it was all planned by the christian god in some way anyway..

harmless enough, she has the right to believe how she wants to believe.

But if the Great Leaders of the future ever figure out a way of making a 'remote-control God' that would certainly be a great source of unifying power for them..

of course to get this to really happen they would have to reduce popular culture to the dark ages..

it seems strange that the internet as we know it is still standing if this is the real objective.

back to the towers.. Surprised

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Fox on September 16, 2007, 12:41:16 pm
I agree, Dan, that they didn't have to get the Saudis out of the country, but they did. I don't think that it was justifiable or fair for them to make that exception, but I do see that exception as something less sinister than an involvement in the attacks. More like, "Shit, this is bad! That crazy bastard's family is here, and we're doing business with them! This won't look good, boys... Okay I've got it! Let's get them out of here and keep it real quiet, hopefully no one'll notice."

Still underhanded and wrong, but nothing all that surprising, really. It was unusual, sure, but this exception served to benefit the administration's image in the days and weeks following the attacks, so it's not hard to see how they came to that conclusion. I'm just saying that suspicious happenings aren't proof of involvement, and most of these suspicious events can be accounted for by either self-preservation, common sense or good old fashioned science. Some things can't be proven though, and so again we're left weighing which scenario is more likely, and the simplest will usually win out.

I don't think that the administration's hands are sparkling clean in this, but I don't think that they were the ones to pull the trigger either. This seems to be the most likely scenario to me, but we might just have to agree to disagree.



Fox
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 16, 2007, 12:48:55 pm
I think we agree - I'm not suggesting that any of this can be considered proof. But I am saying that when something stinks, there is usually something rotting away. And historically, when the Bush family is involved, you can pretty much count on it. Even the Mafia have been more patriotic than them.

If image was the concern, the Bin Laden escape escapade backfired.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 16, 2007, 12:50:28 pm
maxdimario wrote on Sun, 16 September 2007 09:14

it seems strange that the internet as we know it is still standing if this is the real objective.

Good venue for the dissemination of disinformation.

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 18, 2007, 10:07:57 pm
"Do not accept anything simply because it has been said by your teacher, or because it has been written in your sacred book, or because it has been believed by many, or because it has been handed down by your ancestors. Accept and live only according to what will enable you to see truth face to face."

- Buddha, as quoted in "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life" by Thich Nhat Hanh

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 19, 2007, 02:47:41 am
mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 03:07

"Do not accept anything simply because it has been said by your teacher, or because it has been written in your sacred book, or because it has been believed by many, or because it has been handed down by your ancestors. Accept and live only according to what will enable you to see truth face to face."

- Buddha, as quoted in "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life" by Thich Nhat Hanh

DS


Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 19, 2007, 05:12:50 am
labelling everything black or white, us and them etc. is necessary to control large groups of people with relatively little effort.

'conspiracy theorists', 'truthist' etc. are labels which only apply to those who are willing to get into the game and fight it out as opposing teams.... or ARMIES

I do not want to belong to any such team or media-coined group, nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.

The first thing people reach for when they have difficulty digesting something uncomfortable is to dehumanize the source of info. and stick a label on them so that their buddies (comrades, fellow soldiers, team-members etc.) will step in and the fighting begins.

but it really has NOTHING to do with us.. or them.. because the sort of military operations such as 911 WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY US..OR THEM!

they were necessarily organized by a SMALL GROUP of INDEPENDENT people with totally different objectives, values and economic standing than the average AMERICAN or ARAB or EUROPEAN or AFRICAN citizen..any normal citizen of any land.

in short labelling people 'conspiracy theorists' or any other name which incites mindless group-thinking and antagonism places the whole issue into a war-context.

it also makes simple issues confusing and overly emotional.


Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 19, 2007, 05:48:00 am
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 10:12

labelling everything black or white, us and them etc. is necessary to control large groups of people with relatively little effort.

'conspiracy theorists', 'truthist' etc. are labels which only apply to those who are willing to get into the game and fight it out as opposing teams.... or ARMIES

I do not want to belong to any such team or media-coined group, nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.

The first thing people reach for when they have difficulty digesting something uncomfortable is to dehumanize the source of info. and stick a label on them so that their buddies (comrades, fellow soldiers, team-members etc.) will step in and the fighting begins.

but it really has NOTHING to do with us.. or them.. because the sort of military operations such as 911 WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY US..OR THEM!

they were necessarily organized by a SMALL GROUP of INDEPENDENT people with totally different objectives, values and economic standing than the average AMERICAN or ARAB or EUROPEAN or AFRICAN citizen..any normal citizen of any land.

in short labelling people 'conspiracy theorists' or any other name which incites mindless group-thinking and antagonism places the whole issue into a war-context.

it also makes simple issues confusing and overly emotional.





Max, you are the biggest "us and them"er in here!

Just because you think of "us" as being the "common" people, all over the world, be they American, European or Arab, and "them" as being the people controlling everythihg, be they American, European or Arab (you seem to have varying ideas on exactly which group "they" are though, sometimes it's government, sometimes it's coporations, sometimes it's banks, sometimes it's "the old money banking families") doesn't change the fact that you display a hugely simplistic "us and them" attitude, you'll attribute just about anything nefarious to "them", no matter how weak the evidence or indeed how poor the logic.

My statement above, whilst perhaps overly simplistic, was referring to the fact that you have to apply the same standards to all sources of information, something which the SELF PROCLAIMED "truthers" preach but regularly fail to do.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 19, 2007, 10:22:32 am
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47

Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.

Who and what are the "truthers"?

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 19, 2007, 10:52:40 am
mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 15:22

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47

Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.

Who and what are the "truthers"?

DS



I think it may have started with the "Scholars for truth".

It's an overly simplistic term really, but is generally used in reference to the events of 9/11 to refer to people who profess the belief that the towers did not come down due to terrorist action. There are a variety of different claims made, varying from remote controlled planes to holographic projections and beam weapons (I kid you not), but the most common is Max's favourite, that explosives and/or thermite were used to bring the buildings down.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 19, 2007, 10:54:52 am
mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 10:22

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47

Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.

Who and what are the "truthers"?

..Those who practice "Truthiness".
http://www.serendipit-e.com/blog/images/colbert.jpg

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 19, 2007, 11:32:47 am
The administration then?

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 19, 2007, 12:30:42 pm
maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12

nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.


Give me a break.  You analyze nothing.  If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it.

Tell me, max.  Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: mgod on September 19, 2007, 02:37:11 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Mention Skull and Bones, go to jail!

DS
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 07:07:12 am
jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 18:30

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12

nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.


Give me a break.  You analyze nothing.  If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it.

Tell me, max.  Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore?




because heat conduction is not the biggest concern, convection is..

like I said before the heat-sink effect is exactly what you are talking about, heat conducts up, down, sideways etc. but when we deal with fire we are talking about air reacting with fuel for a few seconds and then office equipment, carpet and the like so the heat will be concentrated upwards, although yes the heatsink effect is both up and down.. convection in air, heat travels upwards.

as soon as you move slightly away from the hotspot the temperature drops radically.

the heatsink effect is also affected by the cool atmosphere in contact with the building.



Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 07:12:18 am
Quote:

Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus, the thousand-year-old right to challenge one's accusers in a court of law.


a quote from a comment on the youtube video..

very good.. americans have slept right through that law..
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 20, 2007, 08:32:30 am
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 12:12

Quote:

Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus, the thousand-year-old right to challenge one's accusers in a court of law.


a quote from a comment on the youtube video..

very good.. americans have slept right through that law..


Actually last time I checked (so am open to being shown something has changed) the revoking of Habeas Corpus does not apply to US nationals, but rather to foreign nationals who have been declared unlawful enemy combatants.

Not much better in my opinion, especially not for me since I'm not a US national... but it's important to actually get the facts right in these things.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 20, 2007, 08:40:32 am
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 12:07

jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 18:30

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12

nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.


Give me a break.  You analyze nothing.  If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it.

Tell me, max.  Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore?




because heat conduction is not the biggest concern, convection is..

like I said before the heat-sink effect is exactly what you are talking about, heat conducts up, down, sideways etc. but when we deal with fire we are talking about air reacting with fuel for a few seconds and then office equipment, carpet and the like so the heat will be concentrated upwards, although yes the heatsink effect is both up and down.. convection in air, heat travels upwards.

as soon as you move slightly away from the hotspot the temperature drops radically.

the heatsink effect is also affected by the cool atmosphere in contact with the building.






Convection is the heating of the air and then the movement of that air, now what you're suggesting is that heat will then be conducted from that warmer air back into the metal, but that's only going to happen if the air is at a higher temperature than the metal, but you suggest that this is going to have a notably greater effect than conduction within the metal itself.

I don't think the temperature differential between areas above those directly affected by fire and those below is going to be anything like as large as you imply, and anyway, the areas below were subjected to the additional stress of a chunk of building hitting them.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: jimmyjazz on September 20, 2007, 11:06:10 am
You said "heat travels up", which is a gross misstatement.  Don't try to weasel your way out of it now.  
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 20, 2007, 11:30:45 am
maxdimario wrote

...a complete load of bollocks, as usual

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 01:18:40 pm
convection makes heat travel upwards in all fires.

conduction across metal..

radiation from the fire itself and heated elements.

cement inhibits radiation.

ask any firefighter if the top of a fire is hotter than the bottom.

heat travels upwards..

otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire..
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 20, 2007, 01:33:50 pm
Well done, Max!

you've grasped that When air has a free, unrestricted path convection heat rises.

Now we've just got to get your mind to comprehend a few other basic fundamentals.

...Oh, and that there was no free, unrestricted path of airflow within the building... there was a crippled building in the way.

-but you're getting there... perhaps.

Convection through a solid? -Um... No.

Convection as the dominant heat dissemination? -Ummmmmm.... No.

RADIATED heat doesn't just travel upwards: otherwise the bottom of a patio grill would be cold.

CONDUCTED heat doesn't just rise, otherwise the metal shaft of my Soldering iron would serve as a useful handle, providing I kept the element and tip upright.

No. CONVECTED heat is the heat which is carried by warmed gases. Warming gases expand, and thus rise, carrying their latent absorbed heat with them. If that were the only source of heat transfer, the floors below would be stone cold... but it ISN'T.

Try and grasp that instead of over-simplifying with statements like: "heat travels upwards.. otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire.. "

Radiated heat travels downwards just as well as upwards. -and sideways too! Above a fire, a pot will boil quicker, becasue of the addition of convected gases contacting the pot... but conduction and radiation are ignorant of direction... and if you obstruct or redirect the rising gases, you diminish the convective effects.

Deny that if you like, and proclaim yourself a bigger fool!

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 20, 2007, 01:36:19 pm
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 18:18

convection makes heat travel upwards in all fires.

conduction across metal..

radiation from the fire itself and heated elements.

cement inhibits radiation.

ask any firefighter if the top of a fire is hotter than the bottom.

heat travels upwards..

otherwise you'd put the pot UNDERNEATH the fire..



We're talking specifically about the temperature of a piece of metal which passes through the fire, and not the temperature of the air. You made a claim that below the fire it would be at room temperature, this is patently false

Your reference to where the pot is placed in this context just proves how little thought you actually put into things.
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 01:40:00 pm
A fire in a closed room will be much more intense near the ceiling than the floor.

the flame is more intense in the upper part of the room because of air convection

the heat generated by radiation as well as through conduction from the heated air to the solids is significantly higher in the highest parts of the room/space.

Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 20, 2007, 01:42:38 pm
maxdimario wrote

the heat generated by radiation as well as through conduction from the heated air to the solids is significantly higher in the highest parts of the room/space.

Free path of air, Max... free path of air.

Go on... -almost there...

maxdimario wrote

the flame is more intense in the upper part of the room because of air convection

the flame only rises in the first place because of the convective nature of heated gas, but "flame is more intense in the upper part of the room" as a statement in and of itself is untrue.

...the HEAT is more intense... but that's because of the convective component adding to the others... Yes, we know that.

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 01:47:27 pm
keith there is a free path of air inside the cavity.

the fire is in the cavity...

the hottest part of the fire is at the top of the cavity because of convection..

if you've ever seen a fire burning inside a room the bright flame is towards the top.

you are confusing the SPREAD of fire through convection through open spaces in the ceiling.. in this case the fire spreads as well as heated air through convection

they are two related fenomena but not the same thing
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 01:51:35 pm
anyway to stop the endless bickering on minutiae related to convection you need to consider the much more significant issue:

no matter how hot the affected area of the building, the high temperatures could not have been transmitted through the steel structure for more than a few floors..

the building had HUNDREDS of floors..

...continue.. Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 20, 2007, 01:52:42 pm
No Max, I'm not.

There are Solid floors between the storeys of the building. The building was NOT a single container, it is internally  horizontally baffkled by floors every ten feet. The floor 'baffles' contain breeches where there are elevator shafts, staircases etc, but these have doors which remained mostly closed.

How can a fire on the 80-85th floors make it hotter on the 100th floor? -Convection? -So how exactly is the gas getting there? -There will be a TINY effect from the stuff outside the building, but it will be UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY DWARFED by the conducted heat through the steel structure.

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 20, 2007, 01:56:11 pm
minutiae???!!!!!

YOU raised it to support your poorly-formed 'comprehension'.

Fine. Drop it. Moving on.

Max, it must be fantastic in your world... I don't blame you for spending so much time there, ...but don't be a stranger; Please drop by and see how the rest of us are doing here in reality.

-But we appreciate the postcards!

Very Happy
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: maxdimario on September 20, 2007, 02:04:49 pm
yes, of course keith.

BTW, I know you are but what am I? Laughing
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Jon Hodgson on September 20, 2007, 02:04:51 pm
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 18:51

anyway to stop the endless bickering on minutiae related to convection you need to consider the much more significant issue:

no matter how hot the affected area of the building, the high temperatures could not have been transmitted through the steel structure for more than a few floors..

the building had HUNDREDS of floors..

...continue.. Rolling Eyes


And??

The effects of heat are only considered in working out the initiation of the collapse. After that the only thing that is required is gravity... you know the gravity that resulted in a quarter kiloton of TNT's worth of kinetic energy per tower?
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: Andy Peters on September 20, 2007, 07:33:34 pm
maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 11:04

yes, of course keith.

BTW, I know you are but what am I? Laughing


You are someone who needs to learn how to use the QUOTE button to reply ...

-a
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: ssltech on September 20, 2007, 10:00:40 pm
maxdimario wrote

I know you are but what am I?

Either "splendid entertainment", or "a drain on the educational ability resources of this forum"...

I'm not quite sure which trumps the other.

...but I'll give it some thought.

Keith
Title: Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
Post by: stevieeastend on September 22, 2007, 09:05:40 am
I think the "big picture" point of view would help here a lot. 9/11 is only ONE example of a number of "accidents" and cases in the american history since 1945.
The big questions is why it won´t change anything to discuss falling floors and why it doesn´t make any difference to the relatives of the victims...